Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 4
KQED (PBS) 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
WETA 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 21
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)
in afghanistan. the pentagon says funds from a $2.1 billion trucking contract to get supplies to american troops were funneled to the militants. a pentagon spokesman says a new contract will be awarded and applicants will be more thoroughly vetted. >>> we have an update tonight on the u.s. government law enforcement initiative that allowed guns to fall into the hands of mexican criminals. we have an exclusive report on some of the buyers in operation fast and furious. >> it's a lot of guns. that was the first thing that came into mind. >> this attorney represents manuel acosta, the man accused of recruiting 19 straw buyers later indicted for smuggling guns to mexico. >> they walk into a store, fill out a form, they buy a couple of rifles and walk out and give it to the guy. he gives them a few hundred bucks. >> to purchase a gun every buyer fills out this form. it asks, have you ever been indicted for a felony, been charged with a crime that allows for a year in jail? are you subject to a restraining order? the gun stores forwards that to the fbi, which then approves, denies or delays the purcha
of that part of the savings that the majority leader reid hopes to get is from the war in afghanistan and iraq beginning to wind down. and the cbo has looked at that and said there's a trillion worth of savings that's not real savings because everybody knows the war will wind down. when you look at it as i see it harry reid's proposal is about $950 billion worth of savings. john boehner is $917. quite similar. not the 2.2 or 2.4 that's being talked about. so we do have to do more in term of the immediate cuts in order to extend it for the period of time the president would like. the alternative is this two step process. a trillion dollars now and then have this special committee that would meet and report by the end of november and then there would be additional savings under the boehner proposal. that's almost $2 trillion additional savings, 1.1 trillion. >> the president says he doesn't want to have another formal vote next year and put the country through this ordeal once again right in the middle of elections. he has a point there, right? >> well, wolf, he doesn't have much a point of putt
to decide on holding a new trial. a suicide bomber in afghanistan killed five people today at a memorial service for ahmed wali karzai-- half-brother of the afghan president. the bomber blew himself up at a kandahar mosque where the service was under way. president karzai was not attending. the attack came as a u.n. report said afghan civilian deaths are up 15 percent from a year ago. officials with the u.n. assistance mission in afghanistan blamed 80% of the killings on insurgents. >> this dramatic growth was mainly due to the use of landmine-like pressure plate, improvised explosive devices or i.e.d.s by the anti-government elements. we at unnama documented 1,462 civilian deaths. >> sreenivasan: nato air strikes -- mainly involving helicopters -- were the leading cause of civilian deaths by international forces. the first american combat forces began leaving afghanistan today as part of a gradual pull-out. army national guard units from iowa boarded a military plane at the bagram airbase terminal. they're among some 1,000 troops set to leave afghanistan this month. last month, presiden
, that's clear, isn't it? so there he was, he was making his 15th trip to afghanistan and it was while he was over at camp leatherneck that the marines asked him, okay, if there are a bunch of pentagon cuts, how is that going to affect our equipment and stuff like that. and wherever he has gone so far during this particular swing through the country of afghanistan, the troops are saying are we going to get paid? and he's saying, i don't know. just know this whatever you are owed you'll get paid eventually. you know, and this is how this works down. if we do, talking about if we go into a debt ceiling where we can't pay our bills technically which i don't agree with anyway, let's say, the president has the tablt to decide who gets paid when. clearly the debt is going to get paid first. china and saudi arabia are paid before our military, as bad as that sounds, that has to happen, so our borrowing costs don't go through the roof and then pay the military and social security, and if you dodonn tt order, give the department of education money first, it's the president's fault. it's not congre
afghanistan but they are over in the other places, somalia and arabian peninsula? >> that's right. actually this is a testament to bin laden's plan for the al qaeda network. he created a more diffuse network after the united states began to crack down on al qaeda in late 1990s. you saw rise of al qaeda in north africa and al shaback in east africa. al qaeda in iraq done great damage to u.s. forces. the taliban was once a government but relegated to affiliate movement of al qaeda. what you have a is number of organizations sort of franchises of al qaeda that continue to grow and thrive while we have focused in on the core as we called it. now i think after the death of bin laden in early may, i think we were able to get a lot of intelligence. we've gone after a lot of the other high-level officials within al qaeda and obviously this drone campaign been ongoing in pakistan and some cases yemen, we've taken out something like 1200 fighters from al qaeda including senior leaders. jon: right. >> this is all good news. but again the ideology of radical islam lives on and so do these affiliate gro
savings on the mandatory side and savings from winding down the war in iraq and afghanistan. these are savings that cbo scores of about a trillion dollars, that cbo scoring them at a trillion dollars. now we know some republicans will quibble over the savings but they have no leg to stand on. though war is the second-biggest policy driver of the deficit after the bush tax cuts. if conducting the war ads to the debt, it is undeniable winding down the war deliver savings. the administration tells us with the wind down their putting in place in the iraq and afghanistan, they can prosecute the war on about $630 billion over the next decade. cbo, however, assumes 1.67 trillion in war funding for 2021. by adopting the administration's lower number, we can save over a trillion. we know the republicans agree with this because they included the exact same savings in the wrong and budget that passed the house. i never criticized such accounting then and it's hard to see how they could do so now. last, senator reid's proposal allows a joint committee that has the potential to achieve e
-- the other factor is that we are now drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way
? well, they say that the savings from winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways. so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan which requ
down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of thelan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the w is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trlion. and another thing that's scored in tt, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is phantom money,
. $2.70 trillion in spending cuts, including money saved from ending the war is in iraq and afghanistan. chuck schumer and senator reid spoke about the proposal with reporters for about 25 minutes. >> senators durbin and moynihan are on an airplane. unfortunately, they are not here. but they are on their way. i spent all weekend trying to work something out with republicans. instead of moving forward, we went backwards. one example -- our spending this year for the military is that $700 billion. that is more money for the military than the rest of the country's put together. you would think that in this debate that we have, they could chip in a few bucks to cut some spending. this weekend, the republicans wanted to raise spending. something modest, something the pentagon could live with. over the weekend, lo and behold, more funding for the pentagon. so, rather than trying to work with us on something as obvious as this to save money, they went their own direction. the economy has been forced to have the same debate on the same subject a few months from now. republicans and their short-
that it needs that is a small percentage for wasting infrastructure in afghanistan. the notion that the cftc that the 80 or $90 billion more that we need can't be done because of the deficit that people spent in $147 billion so we can keep subsidizing american farmers is nonsense. similarly with the fcc they want to turn in. they will bring in more money to the system than it will be given to run it. that's one effect. in fact, what you have running here is a catch 22. first, deny the fcc and cftc adequate funding. they in turn are not able to deal with the rulemaking requirements that they have. then because we haven't been able to move as quickly, that's something they have imposed. obviously, you want the fcc and cftc to have smart people and information technology. i have to say i do not see it coming from the financial institutions. many of them recognize while you may not like the rules, if you've got the rules, you want them well run. this is coming from the republican party who just believe despite all of the evidence to the contrary that an unregulated free market works. you saw thi
assistance force, isaf, and u.s. forces afghanistan. the president expressed his full confidence in general allen as he begins this important assignment and that he said he looks forward to working closely with him. and with that i will take your questions. >> i want to follow-up on something the president said. he claimed to call speaker boehner and the other leaders after the house vote to resume meetings here, is that right? should we respect resumption a daily meeting? >> no, i think the president will call speaker boehner, based on what he said. he will call the leaders and arrange for a time for a meeting to happen here at the white house. is not a series of meetings budget sometime in the next few days. >> he also made note at the end there that is in progress or agreement with the concept of six or seven senators, how is the white house expects what this again is think to have an impact on the house republican? >> the news from the gang of six/seven italy a significant because it dramatized and reinforces the fact that the only way to deal a significant deficit reduction bill is to
proposal. why? well, they say that the savings from winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways. so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan wh
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)